JosephM

Or, perhaps he is recognizing Buddha within Christ rather than the other way around.

That's funny. I seem to remember it being recorded that Jesus asked questions also. Since that is what you believe ... Why don't you ask him to send you a pony and see if you get it?

Burl. That raises another question for clarification. If the man Jesus who was known as the Christ is God and i also am alive in Christ and God as you say could one also say that JosephM is God ? If not, was Jesus different than all other men that have ever lived on this earth and if so how was he any different? Thanks.

Burl, Just for my personal understanding of where your response is coming from and some clarification .... Are you saying that Jesus (the) Christ is the only answer and that there is none other to follow that will lead to God?

This is what i have found as the meaning for defining Objective morality. " It is is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion," Burl, i agree the golden rule is universally found in most major religions using similar words. HERE IS FOUND 8 OF THEM Yet to me, religions with such similarities doesn't make it objective, just commonly subjective. I'm not sure such a thing as "objective morality" can exists in this human realm of sentient beings.

Rusty, I have to agree with Paul. Society as a whole sets the moral standards. The Bible allowed slavery and its followers did not take exception.. So was having concubines and more than one wife. Are they absolutes? There are all kind of laws in the Bible (Leviticus) that were supposedly absolute moral standards at least at the time and they are now rejected as not applicable. Morals, to me, seem to have little to do with God and more to the current whims of society. Joseph.

Steve, I like your points on this chapter.

This Weeks Weekly recap from ProgressiveChristianity.org

PS to post 48 - A distraction is essentially a disturbance of the mind. . When one is truly present or just watching the mind rather than being caught up in it, there are no distractions. Everything is part of the moment even that which many perceive as distractions. I think some call it Mushin or mind without mind and some call it no mind.

It seems to me one can remain mindful when distractions occur. One merely remains aware of all ones surroundings including distractions and makes choices . Mindfulness to me is not actually thinking the thoughts such as counting the chews but rather just being completely aware of it. This, in my experience, can be expanded to be aware of all around you without focus on one thing. It may start by the practice of focusing the mind on one thing but it can expand that focus to what i describe a feeling of all around you as complete as one. It is more a state of no mind than thinking and difficult to put in words. Awareness and presence are sort of abstract words to describe what is beyond description. Practicing being mindful seems to me to increase awareness and awareness is actually more a gap in thinking or thoughts rather than thinking. We feel this when we are present with the things around us such as the beauty in Rom's view that was beyond his description. Just my take on the matter, Joseph

Rusty, I don't think the word morality, by any dictionary definition, connotes anything absolute. Morals is simply a system of accepted values/beliefs whether held by an individual, organization or society level. To put morality on God is in my view to change the definition to something it was not defined to mean. I would not argue against the wisdom of not stealing, not raping, killing, etc. but they are not absolutes as Paul points out in his example. There are indeed potential consequences to any action but are things really black and white? I think not. Doesn't the Bible even say that on occasion God commanded the Israelites to massacre men , women and children and even the livestock in some cases not to mention that at least on one occassion (Num31:7-18) to take the virgins for spoil to themselves? That sounds pretty much like rape as i' would think some women would be unwilling. Joseph

Not a case to me of one of us being right or wrong, just sharing and like i said above.... Just my take on it.... Took definition right out of dictionary just so we were on the same page in communication. It seems to me that agreement is not a requirement and disagreement can always be the basis for further communications when we remain open so, at a minimum, we can at least understand each other better . Joseph

Rom says.. I don't know if he meant to include them but i think it would be healthy to include them in dialogue. Also, there are certain sects of Buddhism that are atheistic. The word tradition is general enough to include them. Sure. How can you dismiss or put aside something until you at least seriously consider it? I think when Thich talks of Jesus he has in mind what Jesus and his teachings represents as he likewise does for Buddha. Does it really matter if he believes Jesus is myth or historical? To me, he is historical but if i am incorrect and he is myth, It doesn't really matter to me. The teaching, if proven valid in ones life, is always more important to me than the man or woman. Joseph

This weeks Weekly Recap at Progressive Christianity.org

Hi Russell, Welcome to the forum. Defining morals as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do", i would suggest that all morals are basically apart from God. To me it is not a case of 2 opposing viewpoints and either or both being valid or a case of being right or wrong but rather a matter of choices and consequences that may be associated with a particular viewpoint. ​In Bill's story it was not so much a moral decision the one texting made while driving but rather a choice that carried with it the potential of consequences that did result this time in a death. A person who makes wise choices may or may not believe in God (at least in the context of your beliefs) yet their morals may be very similar if not the same as one who does. Morals do not, in my view, indicate right and wrong but rather a persons beliefs, as the definition states "concerning what is or what is not acceptable for them to do". I personally like the word "prudent" when making choices. Just my take on it, Joseph

Rom, Enjoy your fortieth. I would normally say "have a very special day" but at this time i find all days special each with their own experiences. Just celebrated my forty-eigth (48th) in July. See you on Monday. Joseph

My take on Chapter 1 Chapter one seemed short and easy to read. Its pages encouraged its reader to be "nourished by the best values of many traditions". Also, to practice non attachment from ones own views so as to be open to other viewpoints . Thich attributes a cause of killing (wars ?) to people clinging too tightly to their own beliefs. His answer to it is understanding and real communications. He attributes effective dialogue coming out of a deep peace from within through being still and "deep listening". He uses both references to Christian teachings and Buddhist teachings to make his points.

This Weeks PC Weekly Recap ---- HERE

Picked up my book from the library this afternoon. Read Introduction and 1st chapter. Will read both again more slowly and wait til everyone has their book and you are ready for comments

Rom, i don't think Tich advocates educated discussions from what i read in the Foreword.

I read part of the foreword online at amazon look inside. Won't have book for another day or so. In it he says Thich says " Discussing God is not the best use of our energy" . He prefers practice at mindfulness where we are less likely to "get stuck in notions". I thought that was a great point.

I will be happy to join in on the discussion. Burl you are automatically the discussion leader since you initiated the thread.

Burl, Actually i think it was the 19th century. Some attribute the "Doctrine of the Rapture" to him but others say he just revived or popularized it. I like your description of the Bible with the word "vehicle". Unfortunately to me it transports a lot of old customs and outdated thinking concerning God with it. However, having said that, i find portions truly deep, contemplative and inspiring to the point that some of its principles can be verified by experience and life-changing if implemented in ones life. Joseph

It seems to me that when one 'buys into' or decides to unconditionally believe the premise that the Bible is actually God's Word, there is little room for discussion. That premise doesn't appear to leave any room for reason outside of what is written therein as understood by the reader. Essentially, the door is closed to other views or opinions. It seems indeed sad to me to see another encompassed by that self-imposed wall. Yet having been walled in myself i can see there is always hope that when the time and conditions are ripe that if by no other explanation than grace, the walls will crumble and the light begin to expose itself so a new and more progressive personal journey may begin. The premise that "The Bible is the Word of God" is to me the first false premise that needs to be shed before other false beliefs contained therein can be exposed. Just thinking out loud, Joseph

Member GISMYS (which is an acronym for God is my Source) is now banned from this site for not conforming to the purpose/intent and etiquette of this discussion board. While not on the Spam list our system uses, google research shows him previously banned from at least 3 other forums for his verbal behavior and using sites as a Bible pasting board. JosephM (as Admin) PS 2 other topics by Gismys on this forum have had no responses and were deleted as Spam